The Conservative Mantra, “We want our guns, to hell with the lives of our children." It's a religion for the loons. They're proud that we're an armed nation that kills its children with pride. He's what one of the gun masturbators wrote:

"There is no way that confiscation will work. Ever. That was the intent of our founding fathers: the populace would always be better armed numerically than any standing army.

I've hit targets out to 500 yards with just iron sights using WWII ammunition and a British .303 Enfield. Many guns and ammunition today will still be usable into the 22nd Century.

The liberals have pulled every trick in the book, every propiganda piece possible, and tried outlawing firearms completely.

Sorry, it didn't work. Their worst nightmare happened: the American people re-discovered their roots and reasons for firearms. Then they headed to the nearest gun store and purchased all the black guns they could afford. They are still doing it at a record pace.

Ammunition manufacturers are pumping out rounds like a wartime economy; still the store shelves are empty. Prices of some calibers have quadrupled over the past ten years - mainly due to demand.

All that these central-government types have done is awaken a sleeping giant. They have lost this war and the 2nd Amendment remains."

It’s Not Just Sick, but complete insanity.

"Lisa said...Oh and speaking of accurate. Obama surrendered hi aw license for lyibg on his application when asked if he ever went by another name and he must have forgotten Barry Soetoro"

It's been over 24 hours since Lisa came here and posted that comment.

I challenged her to back it up with evidence from a reliable source, not Breitbart or World Net Daily.

I quoted James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, as my reliable source who emphatically said no such disciplinary action was initiated by the Illinois State Bar Association. IOW, what she wrote, unless and until she proves otherwise, is slander.

Why did she and why do her fellow conservatives serve up this sort of calumny about the president?

She could engage in a debate on his policies, but she never does that. She and her conservative friends spread rumors and lies, or complain that President Obama has supporters because in their narrow world no one should support or admire this president, or his wife.

And speaking of his wife, Mrs. Obama has done nothing unusual in her role as FLOTUS, but the people who hang out at "Who's Your Daddy" engage in calling her the most despicable names and find sport in talking about her physical appearance.

And that's all they have. There's never a discussion that rises above juvenilia.

So, here's the deal: I challenged Lisa on her claim quoted above. When called on to prove it, she disappeared.

You can voluntarily surrender your law license to avoid disciplinary action. By the way Chicago politics are corrupt just like DC ,maybe more,where people can be threatened or payed off to keep their mouths shut.

Lisa: "You can voluntarily surrender your law license to avoid disciplinary action. By the way Chicago politics are corrupt just like DC ,maybe more,where people can be threatened or payed off to keep their mouths shut."

Here is what the deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois said about the Obamas law licenses:

"James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, who affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization."

Lisa's take on this is that James Grogan is probably corrupt and was paid off to make the above statement.

Lisa tells us this based on absolutely nothing but her corrupt opinion of the Obamas. She is the first one to call people who support the Obamas "worshippers."

But what do we call someone who spreads vicious lies, based on nothing?

Lisa, you think Obama supporters a blind. Have you done some introspection on your reasons for continuing to promote this slander?

Lisa, You Are WRONG! on all! Wrong on the ACA, wrong on the debt ceiling, wrong on the VA Scandal, wrong on President Obama’s administration are using “secret” government email accounts . wrong on Benghazi (it's not a scandal), wrong on the IRS (it's not a scandal), wrong on the Ukraine. So far the loony right's batting 1,000.

Don't forget these people believed Sarah Palin was smarter than President Obama.

A: No. Many records that presidential candidates don’t ordinarily release do remain confidential, but they are not “sealed” by a court. The 16 claims in a widely distributed graphic are mostly false or distorted.

FULL ANSWERThis is an example of mostly old baloney in a new casing. It mainly recycles years-old falsehoods and insinuations, most of which we covered long ago, in connection with an earlier viral email.But with President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign heating up, this new graphic has appeared on countless anti-Obama websites and in viral emails like the one we’ve reprinted here. Very little that it contains is new, and the old falsehoods have not improved with age.Nothing ‘Sealed’The idea that any Obama record is “sealed” is a falsehood, to start. The word “sealed” when applied to documents ordinarily refers to records that would normally be public, but that a judge has ruled cannot be released without the court’s permission. Common examples of truly “sealed” documents include records of crimes committed as a juvenile or records of adoptions. None of the claims in this message refers to records actually “sealed” in that usual sense.

Lisa, you changed the subject and redirected. That's probably because you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that the Obamas lost their law licenses due to some nefarious reason. It's okay to have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

So, to be factual: The Obamas were not disciplined, and their law licenses were not taken away as a disciplinary action by the Illinois State Bar Association. The Obama voluntarily let their licenses lapse, since they would not be working lawyers while living in the White House as America's First Family. That's a fact.

Another fact is that the Obamas' school transcripts are not "sealed."

I've given you the answer to that from FactCheck.org.

PolitiFact and Snopes say the same thing.

You and your friends claim those fact-checking organizations are run by Soros, and you also insinuated that the Illinois State Bar Assn. was bought off by the Obamas so the the real "false fact" could be hidden from the American people.

Question: Do you guys get your information from the mercury fillings in your teeth?

Shaw talk about redirecting, no one said they were taken away . They voluntarily surrended them under suspicious circumstances. You can voluntarily surrender it to avoid disciplinary action,but according to you and Chris Matthews O is squeaky clean. All they would have to do is pay 300 per year to keep them active. They couldn't manage that but could afford million dollar vacations?Bill Clinton still had his while he was in the WH and not practicing. You seem to believe everything you are spoon fed with no proof,so really you sound hypocritical

No, Lisa. Do you not know how to read? "James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, who affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings,"

There are NO "suspicious" circumstances surrounding the suspension of the Obama's law licenses. The "suspicions" are in you head and the heads of you fellow wingnuts. You refuse, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, to accept this fact.

You're the one with the problem. You have no evidence, no facts. You have your hatreds and your paranoia. That's all.